You are correct. I said something about ISIS and was attacked as an "Ugly, uneducated, asshole who should just fuck off." I nicely retweeted her position as an ISIS defender to my 58K followers so her wisdom could be seen by more then just her 390 followers. Then I felt bad and took it down. Her account would've been shit on so badly it would've been sad.
Yikes. Maybe I worded it incorrectly, but that actually proves I was wrong. I was trying to say that it does NOT seem likely the SJWs would call someone racist for blaming a radical Islamic group (like ISIS). I thought it seemed more likely they would only call someone racist for blaming Islam period. But you were attacked for mentioning ISIS specifically, so that means I was wrong.
Europe is hypocritical. They do that very well. At European soccer games they have banners on the side that say, "Say No to Racism", yet players can get racial slurs and bananas thrown at them. If that happened over there, the community which it happened in would be humiliated and shamed at an unbelievable level, yet those things continue to be a problem at games. EU countries like to say they're inclusive and tolerant, but I think, in my very unenlightened opinion, that in their core many of these countries default is nationalism and some xenophobia. They have proud histories, distinct identities, etc. I think this era of immigration is challenging those identities and they're not sure what to do. Nationalism is an easy way to for populations to think they're holding onto whatever national identity they have. The immigration thing is interesting. They felt compelled to let people from these war torn countries in because of the image they preach, and I think their citizens weren't too happy about it. On one hand they said we're inclusive so we must let them in, on the other, in the back of their minds, I think they were nervous and uneasy about the situation. In some ways I think Hungary, despite being exceptionally controversial, was at least being honest about its view on this problem in limiting immigration from those war torn populations
We must make the distinction between radical Islam and Islam, between refugees and radical minded interlocutors. Why? Because there are 3 billion fucking people who identify as Muslim, who go about their business like you and I and absolutely despise what psychopaths do in the name of god*. The mouth breathers can not discern between the two and you know that is true; listen to the shit that comes out of their mouths. Like Clutch said, ISIS is trying to provoke an aggressive response from the west. To play into that is beyond stupid. I am sympathetic towards the disgust for Islam. I've read a lot of their scripture and it is just as stone age minded as the other Abrahamic religions. How does one discern, without lumping everyone together, between the uneducated class and the radical, or between the American shop owner and the young fool who is indoctrinated? Which is why I try really, really hard to remain open minded. Minnesota Muslim and Damascus Muslim are not the same by a long shot. Pashtun Muslim in London is not Pashtun in Afghanistan is not Sunni or Shiite in Iraq. Everyone has been sticking their noses into ME affairs since World War I. Since before these places were even modernized. At large, the ME is still a barren, desolate desert, its people uneducated and mere generations from tribal warfare. Shit, tribal warfare still exists. The women and children are basically property. Couple this with a millenium of theocracy. What did anyone expect? *Think Christians want to be lumped in with the megachurch charlatans?
The only difference I see between super religious people here that want the country to live by Christian laws and ISIS is the propensity to use violence to enforce it. They all pretty much want the same thing. The other thing is that people always talk about "moderate Muslims" that aren't doing the same things as the extremists. But the moderates are still pretty extreme by all other standards. So they aren't the ones carrying out the attacks, but they also don't care to stop it or do a lot to distance themselves from it. By comparison, even a large majority of our Christian population is pretty liberal when you look at the sharia law or even Orthodox Judaism. It's hard to ignore when there is a staggering amount of terror attacks all over the world and Muslim terror groups are happy to take responsibility. It won't go away because the moderates don't want it to and more thoughtful ones are too afraid of being killed themselves. They have some fucked up view of the afterlife and also love the fact that they will be revered in their communities as a great martyr to be looked up to. They want the recognition and respect. Human life is fodder to them.
Agreed, sort of. Evangelicals wish to legislate their religion here. For instance, Ted Cruz's campaign manager wants to make homosexuality illegal and throw gays in prison. He is not alone. Christianity has evolved, and under our current society and laws violence would get nothing done. We do not condone it. Prison and ostracization, sure. However, ME culture is not civilized. The same standards cannot be applied. You say moderates are culpable for not speaking up. Why should they? Approximately 2 billion of them don't even live in the ME. Where are the moderate Christians speaking out against discrimination? It is only the current Pope who came out to say American discrimination against gays is wrong. The media doesn't report on that side of the argument because it is understood as a given (besides the newsworthiness/shock value of it). Citizens in the thick of extremist violence, or sectarian violence, where does speaking out get them besides tortured and murdered? It is illegal to speak out against a theocracy anyway. You're asking a whole lot of people to even know what moderation means. This is a way of life that is completely inseparable from their religion. How does one begin to ameliorate that? Violence, forcing a government shift does not work, it must be done slowly, socially, at the impetus of their own citizenry. Then you have to question if they even *want* to change a millenia old existence. Shit, who in the area is the model for a progressive ME Islam? Israel has open elections, but a history of xenophobia and possibly genocide depending on how one wishes to define it. Saudia Arabia? They just let women begin to drive. Sort of. The discussion is multi-faceted. The only certainty is direct intervention brings about more enmity. The best thing Americans can do is literally sing Kumbayah M'Lord.
What? People in this country are obsessed with speaking out against discrimination to the point we are inventing new versions of it just to speak out against it. As for the media reporting, what media are you absorbing where this isn't happening? Its literally everywhere. Now, no one frames their statements as, "As a Moderate Christian, I... " But you cited the Pope, and as far as where he falls on the spectrum, hes not exactly moderate and hes the supposed leader of 1 Billion+ Catholics. I think its important to divorce Catholics from the rest of Christian religions though, they certainly would like to... Theres no comparison between ardent Evangelicals and Islamic fundamentalists. Even the craziest Evangelical will just protest a gay marriage. In the Middle East, you'll go before a religious tribunal, and if you're lucky, you just get whipped 1000 times instead of getting your head cut off.
No. Where are the priests, the reverends, the pastors of these huge churches coming out to say discrimination and hate is wrong? Where is the christian sympathy for gays? We were talking about the faithful's reaction, not the ordinary citizen. The largest voices in the christian community double down on discrimination. Unless you want to say Americans are typically pro-gay because 86% identify as christians, and the general response outside of the deep south is at least a tacit approval of gay rights. Which kind of proves my point about moderate reaction across cultures/religions. What am I watching? I am watching/reading the same thing where media generally is not reporting heavily on the christian apologists. It is typically not the priest who goes on cable news to defend the anti-discrimination crowd. It is usually a politician or some kind of civil rights figure. Not in all cases, but from what I've gathered. I'm not trying to write a research paper here. In other news: Like clockwork, here is national jackass Donald Trump saying interrogation techniques more extreme than waterboarding should be legal: http://www.today.com/news/donald-trump-responds-brussels-attacks-it-s-very-dangerous-city-t81716 This is shit we don't need. Breaking Geneva Convention does not help. As stated before, this kind of bullshit enhances sympathy for the opposition.
When you look at some of the crazy fucking beliefs the Christian Right has (look up Quiverfull, for example) and see a lot of similarities between the two, you can't help wonder if the positions were switched that it'd be the ardent Evangelicals beheading people in the Middle East while the Islamic Fundamentalists in the US would be out protesting. The reason I dislike the sole focus on Islam as the reason for all this is because it ignores the cultural forces in the Middle East that have just as big of role in this terrorism as the religion.
Didn't you already cite the Pope? Even if you want to separate Evangelicals from Catholics (because they sure would), there are still examples. And I agree, its not fair to lump all Muslims in with the crazies. But the moderates and non-Muslims in the ME are on the brink of an existential crisis if there is a fully unified Islamic state. There's nothing unique or magical about the geographic area of the Middle East (except regarding natural resources), but there is a clear common denominator. And how do you separate culture from religion when the former so heavily impacts the latter? Now, if you want to argue that the Middle East is the way it is today and the people were driven to religious fanaticism from decades of various forms of foreign occupation and countless examples involvement in the region, then that is a perfectly legitimate argument. But saying one mirrors the other is absurd.
In my anecdotal experience (a large number of my mother's friends are "Christian"), they're not preaching hate or discrimination, but they're practising it to some extent. There's a shit-ton of judging going on for a religion that preaches "judge not lest ye be judged". Personally, I think religion of any kind is a problem.
All religion is man-made, and it was developed to exert control over other people who otherwise have no effect on a person's life. Money is not the root of all evil; the root of all evil is the irrational quest for power and control over other people. I used to be very religious. My kids are not.
I had facebook friends (had being the key word there), that thought the gay marriage decision would bring brimstone and hell fire down on the US. I have a lot of gay friends that oddly enough are uber Catholics. One of them was removed from their parents home because their parents tried to beat the gay out of them. Another is not on speaking terms with her parents because she is gay. This all purely anecdotal, but there are some stupid, hate filled fucks out there that don't think see no issue with it because some book written 2000 years ago has a line or two justifying it.
There's a huge difference between some extremist asshole yelling about gay marriage and drowning out millions of quiet assholes who keep their opinions to themselves...and someone recruiting the most poorly educated and maligned people that modernity has shit on to commit atrocities. Yelly asshole? Stop listening. Apocalypse cult recruiter? Neutralize that cunt and get creative on how, because violence isn't silencing them. I am a big fan of energy independence because that evaporates the capital they need to do shit like this (unless we believe the people responsible for attacks like this held down their own jobs).
This just reinforces my point, though. Like you said, the culture so heavily impacts the religion, but this implicates the culture as a prime cause. As far as separating the two, it would seem to me that you do that by making efforts to stop the culture from continuing to influence the religion when the religion has been removed from the culture. The internet makes this more challenging - makes it easier for ISIL recruiters and the like to find and communicate with people who are vulnerable to radicalization - but my concern is that by erecting an us-and-them divide with all Muslims cast as "them" it only serves to allow shitty Middle Eastern culture - which could be the way it is due to decades of foreign intervention - to continue to be the primary influence on Islam.
There's no shortage of crazy Christians preaching hate, but there is a pretty big difference in the messages of Qur'an and new testament. The old testament is full of just as much crazy shit, but most of the Christians preaching hate have little to do with the message of Jesus Christ. I'm not saying one religion is great and the other is terrible, but that is a difference that matters. ZZR- I hear that a lot, about how religion was made to control people, but there's at best limited evidence for this. We have no way to know what Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha, etc were really thinking when they said all of these things. It's not a completely implausible explanation, but especially in the cases of Jesus and Buddha I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense. Now, of course various rulers have used religion to exert control, but that's different from saying "this is why it came about". Edit: Also, a lot of the woman hating shit in the middle east isn't even in the Qur'an. Some of it is, but things like genital mutilation and having to cover their bodies and faces (which is so associated with Islam) have nothing to do with the actual religion.
The Archdiocese here in town ran an anti-gay campaign when same-sex marriage was on the ballot a couple of years ago, under the guise of protecting the integrity of marriage and families and all that bullshit. They mailed out a metric shit-ton of letters and DVDs (400,000!) to congregations and dedicated sermons to the cause. It was explicitly political and drove a lot of people away... it's supposed to be church, not a lobbyist group.
Unfortunately it's not that simple. The US already only imports 24% of its oil, and of that percentage only 20% comes from Persian Gulf countries. Even if the US becomes 100% energy independent of Middle East oil someone else would open their wallets in order to get that oil. I haven't done a huge amount of research, but as I understand it a big reason we continue to support Saudi Arabia is because we don't want some else (like China) to step in and start pulling the strings if we cut ties.
This has come up before, and while it's true that some of these recruits are poorly educated, it is not the case with many of them. Extremism doesn't seem to have a social class. It makes intuitive sense that the people who would sign up for this shit are poor and without any education, but somewhat surprisingly it is often not the case. I think the reason people refuse to budge on this stance is that they really want to believe education can solve everything. Unfortunately I don't think that's the case. This is why I find the whole narrative about us going to the Middle East for oil so ridiculous. For one thing you would have to blindly ignore all the realities of how much money we've lost in these conflicts to actually believe we were getting some sort of economic benefit. More importantly, while we do buy oil from the middle east it is a relatively low percentage of what we use overall and we by no means are dependent on them to run our economy. If the middle east stopped selling to us tomorrow we have other options to fill the gap. Our biggest non-domestic supplier right now is Canada and I sincerely doubt we'll be invading them anytime soon to protect our interests. When we invade Canada it will clearly be to overthrow communism (public healthcare, whatever) and install a proper democratic regime.